Cyberbludging
Jack Andrys, CEO of Perth-based WebSpy, believes companies knew there was a problem surrounding unauthorised Internet use, but didn't have the information necessary to make decisions and take appropriate action.
According to Andrys, his company's tools provide that information, and once companies know exactly what's going on, they can decide if employee behaviour really is a problem for them.
Potential time-wasters include Internet shopping, banking and investing, personal e-mail, watching streaming videos, and browsing news and sports sites. Other bandwidth killers include downloading large files for personal use, including music, video, and software.
In a white paper, Andrys claims "Research has shown that the cost of employees accessing the Internet for personal use during work hours is costing Australian organisations in the order of AU$1 billion per year in lost productivity" and that "Some 40 percent of all Internet traffic between 9am and 5pm is believed to be non-business related."
No sources for these assertions are quoted, although Andrys says the company has taken figures from various studies over the last few years as well as data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Smith suggested things might be even worse than that, citing a report by Internet research company Red Sheriff. "Using Australian Bureau of Statistics data, and two surveys, the researchers found employees who did not have Internet at home were 'wasting' about 3.6 hours a week each on the Internet.
Or, in other words, each worker was spending 72 hours annually online for personal use, a 70 percent increase on 1997," he says. "In a year, that is [costing Australian businesses] AU$22.5 billion."
A Gallup Poll conducted last year found US workers were averaging 75 minutes a day on non work-related Internet use. In an Australian context, that's equivalent to 300 hours a year--or about four times Smith's figure.
Tel.Net's marketing materials include a variety of statistics from a range of sources. One that might have managers particularly concerned is that a Vault.com survey that found 24.3 percent of employees says they take precautionary measures to avoid detection when using the Web.
That's actually a figure from 1999. Vault's 2000 survey found the proportion had increased to 27.8 percent. Interestingly, that survey also showed employers were almost equally divided on the issue of whether surfing non-work related sites affects employee productivity.
Some companies appear to take research findings out of context or otherwise misinterpret them. For example, the Spectorsoft Web site--aimed at concerned spouses and parents as well as employers--proclaims "38 percent of people have engaged in explicit online sexual conversation," citing a study by Greenfield and Rivet. However, a paper written by Greenfield (www.virtual-addiction.com/internetaddiction.htm) indicates that it should be "38 percent of Internet addicts have engaged . . .", which is a different matter.
Furthermore, the respondents to this survey were far from representative of the general population, and while that doesn't invalidate Greenfield's conclusions, it does make Spectorsoft's claim even less believable.
Even if your staff all do the right thing, failing to control e-mail and Web traffic can still be expensive. Pete Simpson, manager of Baltimore's MIMEsweeper ThreatLab, pointed out that spam wastes employees' time, even if they immediately delete it from their inboxes.
Furthermore, inappropriate or unwanted e-mail not only takes up bandwidth, it also eats into storage space. This is a particular problem where attachments are involved.
Internet access isn't free, so Andrys suggests you should make sure that staff realise you are doing them a favour by allowing any private Internet use. Hefty volume charges mean that even if you only allow MP3 files to be downloaded during the lunch hour, that could be an expensive perk.
i think that the cyberbludging special was helpful